Authority of the Padshahs in 16th century mughal India

8/7/2019 Authority of the Padshahs in 16th century mughal India

1/28

Shivram B. SACS Vol. 2 No. 2 pp11-38

TheAuthorityofthePadshahsinSixteenth CenturyMughalIndia

BalkrishanShivamI.

TheMughal,orTimurid,empirethatwasfoundedbyZahirudDinMuhammadBabur

between1526and1530wasbytheseventeenthcenturythemostpowerfulempire

the Indian subcontinent had ever known. Underlying it were the superior military

capabilitiesofagenerationofCentralAsiansoldiers,butitowedmuchtothereignof

Jalal udDinMuhammadAkbar (r.15561605) when the institutions thatdefined the

regimeweresetfirmlyinplaceandtheheartlandoftheempirewasdefined;bothof

these were the accomplishment of Akbar. It was the Akbar works that laid the

foundationforthegoodfortuneofaseriesoflonglivedandcompetentdescendants.

The Mughal Empire was one of the great dynastic powers of the medieval Islamic

worldanditsnaturehasalwaysbeenofcaptivatinginteresttohistoriansofIndiaand

Europe alike. There is considerable disagreement among historians concerning the

strength and competence of the Mughal state, with some describing it as a huge

leviathan,othersapapertiger.Themodelsortypologiesusedinthestudyofauthority

in medieval India patrimonialism, feudalism, the territorial state, aristocracy,

bureaucracy, absolutism, and so forth have been developed by European and

Americanscholarsoutoftheirownculture.TheirapplicationintheIndiancontexthas

notbeen,onthewhole,convincing.

___ __ __________________

11

_ ______________________________________________

1. Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla.Balkrishan Shivam is a fellow of theEmail: [email protected]


2/28

SociologistsandworldhistoriansclassifytheMughalEmpireasanexampleofOriental

despotismorbureaucraticempire. KarlA.Wittfogel(1981:56)presentsdespotismas

aforerunnerofmoderntotalitarianism.Withoutdelvingatlengthintohisconception

of hydraulic society, its political correlates, and the controversy concerning it, he

describes the political system of such societies as dominated by a bureaucratically

despoticstate.

S.N.Eisenstadt (1969:1012)employscentralizedbureaucracyasthe

defining characteristic of a general category of societies, which he calls centralized

historical bureaucratic empires, and places them between patrimonial societies,

feudalsocieties,andcitystatesononesideandmodernsocietiesontheotherinthe

scaleofpoliticaldevelopment. WittfogelandEisenstadtbothstressthepresenceof

thepowerful,centralizedbureaucracyasthevitalcharacteristicofhistoricalempire.

Stephen P. Blake (1991:278303) derives a conception of patrimonialbureaucratic

empiresfromMaxWeberandcontendsthattheMughalregimefitsinthiscategory

better than bureaucratic despotism. Webers model of the patrimonial state

describestheregimeasanextensionofthehouseholdoftheruler,whoseauthorityis

an expansion of that of the father in a patriarchal family. Marshall G.S. Hodgson

(1974:1718) andWilliam H.McNeill (1982:958), accepting the ideaofbureaucratic

dominance,assertthatthediffusionoffirearms,especiallysiegeartillery,explainsthe

increase in central power which brought the Mughal Empire into being.

One may

describetheirviewasthegunpowderempirehypothesis.

IshareFarhatHasans(2006:introduction)dissatisfactionwiththeattemptsto

portraytheMughalstatemerelyonthebasisoffiscalandmilitaryterms.Heobserves

that the state does not only extort revenues but also redistributes them.

Correspondingly, the state not only uses force but also manufactures consent to

ensureobedience.Hasan,seesthestatefromtheperspectiveoflocalitiesandasserts

thattheMughalstatewasbuttressingthelocalsystemofpowerinthelocalitiesand

wasconcomitantlyopeningupnegotiatedspacefortheassimilationofforcesresisting

theminthepoliticalsystem.BurtonSteins(1980;1998:13388)modelofsegmentary

state distinguishes two kinds of sovereignty in medieval kingdoms political

sovereignty,consistingofthedirectruleorcontrolexercisedbylocalpowersintheir

immediate localities, and ritual sovereignty, the loose and custodial hegemony

12


3/28

exercisedbythekingatthetopofthepyramidal,segmentarystructure.Scholarshave

confined segmentary state models application to early south India and refrained

fromitsapplicationtoMughalIndia.

There is farreachingdisagreementamongst historiansconcerning themodel

that best describes the Mughal state. Typologies of this sort, which depict Mughal

Empireasabureaucraticallycentralizedsystemaswellastheopposingattemptsto

characterizeitasadecentralizedfeudalsystemviewtheMughalEmpirealoneand

dealwithitfromthetraditionalsocioeconomicpatterofstudies.Thepurposeofthis

paper is to offer a model for categorization of the Mughal authority with special

emphasis on the symbolism and ceremonial elements or rather its capsule

description to facilitate comprehension of its significance in Indian history, rather

thantoclassifyitwithexternalandgeneralperspectives.Thedescriptionrestsonan

effort to understand the human action that takes place within a symbolic field

whereinallutteranceandexpressionissuffusedwithmeanings. AccordingtoDavidF.

Lindenfeld (1988:35),

the ubiquity of this type of mental activity prevents it from

servingasadescriptionofthenarrower,morespecificrolesthatexplicitideasplayin

history.Lindenfeldfurtherassertsthatthestudyofsuchroles,whetherforpurposes

of documentation of the past or dialogue with it, constitutes an essential part of

history.Inrecenttimes,anumberofspecialistsinIndiaandabroadhavenowshifted

theiracademic interestfromthetraditionalpatternofMughalstudiestothevarious

aspectsofculture,thoughtandmentality.

AccordingtotheMughaltheoryofsovereignty,theemperor,orpadshah(the

title indicating legitimate succession to the Timurid throne) possessed absolute

authority in the empire. The persona of the emperor embodied the state and to

challengehim,hisnameoranythingthatsymbolizedhisauthority,wastochallenge

theempire.TheMughalsclaimedasetofsymbols,metaphorsandceremonialactsto

representthisauthority.Manyhistorians,asforinstanceCharlesNuckolls(1990:529

59),considersymbolsandceremonialsasinstrumentsforconsolidatingauthority(see

alsoPrice1987;Adamson1999).Lindenfeld(1988:3050) believesthatthesymbols

or in a broader category, embodiments as they are acted out dynamically not

meantforintrospectivepurposescondensecomplexmeaningsofpartsofsystemof

13


4/28

thought intoasingleexpression.Thesymbols,physicalobjectsandceremonialacts,

can easily transmit ideas and values because they are simple and are therefore

understood by themajority. Asymbol isusuallyunderstood inan intuitivemanner

rather thanbyacomplicatedprocessof interpretationandarticulation. Justas the

symbolsoftheimperialsovereigntyconveyedtheideasandvaluesthatwerepartof

theMughalauthority,sotheirextensiveuseimplementedaverydirectandformalized

meansofcontrol. Anyattempttoabuseordefytherulesandregulations laiddown

by the Muslim padshah was punished summarily in an efficient, personal way

dependingupontheviolatorandthenatureanddepthofinfringement.

The consolidation of imperial authority depended upon the capacity of the

padashah to organize manpower and economic resources and mobilize political

support;therulerhadtoestablishabureaucraticapparatuswhichprovidedefficient

instruments of political and administrative action. Although this bureaucracy was

characterizedbysomedegreeofautonomyandindependence,padashahsattempted

to hold on to a high degree of control by keeping nominations to administrative

offices in their own hands, demanding loyalty and committed service of their staff.

Despite the development of these centralizedbureaucratic polities the emperors

control was not necessarily based upon written fundamental law. A framework of

commoncultural[includingbroadsetofbeliefs,assumptionsandcourtrituals1

]and

political symbols and identities formed the basis for apotentially universal ideology

which transcended territorial and other limits within the empire (Eisenstadt 1968,

vol.v:419)

II.

TheMughalempireonceresteduponafirmbaseofmilitarypower,sustainedbythe

loyalty of the men of talent to the central figure of authority, the emperor. The

emperors authority, effected in the first instance by military conquest, was then

perpetuatedbyanelaboratestructureofsymbolsandrituals.Althoughtheritualsand

symbolsweresignificantappurtenancesofemperorspublicpersona,itseemsinitself

14


5/28

to have conveyed no power of authority. Rather, it was the stylized patterns

symbolizingtheimperial authority,ortheembroideredimageofthepadshah.

Among padshahs symbols of authority were the throne (awrang), the

umbrella (chatr) and the fan (sayaban), the two globes (kawakaba), the flags and

standards (alam), theemblemof thesun (shamsah) (AbulFazl1994, vol.i:523;Aziz

1937:18688; Verma 1976:415). The use of these royal symbols was an exclusive

imperial right. Several other prerogatives were reserved for the padshah. For

example,nobodywasallowed to imitate thesizeorscarletcolourof the royaltent,

and certain dresses, cloth, headgear and footwear as well as jewellery and the

weaponswerealsobanned(Ansari1974:115,10607).Governorswerenotallowedto

construct a jharoka (viewing), hold court or durbar of their own, compel men to

performtaslim(formofsalutation),orrequireimperialofficerstoremainstandingin

theirpresence,ortomountguardduty(Jahangir1978:205/117;Nathan1936:21314

entry by a slash refers Persian text). These articles outwardly distinguished the

emperorfromhisservants. ThesymbolofIslamiclegitimacy,thekhutba(thesermon

read inthepadshahsname intheFridayprayerservice inthemosquesthroughout

therealm),andthesikka(coinsminted inthepadshahsname),alsoaugmentedthe

authority of the imperial power. These symbols alone, however, would have been

insufficienttosustainthedynastywithout furtherterritorialexpansionandconstant

reinforcement of the padshahs position through rituals in which his subordinates

reaffirmedtheirobedienceandinvestedthemwithhisauthority.

The question which arises is not only how much power and authority the

Mughal actually held, but how they transformed that power into the authority and

whatkindofauthoritytheypossessed.Contemporaryhistorians,scholarsandliterary

writersdepictedtheMughalemperorsasshadowsofGodonearthwhoseauthorityto

rulewasadivineright,inheritedinalineofdescentfromthefirstfourCaliphstoAmir

Timurandhis successors. The historically legitimated superior status of thedynasty

justifiedthesubmissionofthechiefsoftheproudestclanstoitssuzerainty(AtharAli

1991:26768).

The Mughals claimed authority over Muslims as guardians of the Islamic

revelation and the sharia (the canon law of Islam). While Islamic religious thinking

15


6/28

hadgenerallyrestrictedthereligious functionoftheemperortomereprotectionof

law, AbulFazl, the imperial chronicler, invested the Mughal padshah Jalal udDin

Muhammad Akbar with a paramount spiritual authority (AbulFazl 1994,vol.i:3) .

According to theAkbarnama, theextensivebiographyofAkbarwrittenbyAbulFazl

(1998; 1994, vol. i: 17276), thepadshah enjoyeda special relation with God which

raised him above the status of mortal beings whose mystical experiences

demonstrateddivine inspirationandguidance.Themoralauthoritywhichhegained

by his reputation as a mystic and spiritual guide did not derive from any particular

religion but directly from God and therefore he legitimized his position as ruler for

MuslimandHindualike(AtharAli1991:268).Besideshishistoricalandreligiousclaims

to authority, Akbar introduced a third, rational element into the Mughal theory of

sovereigntywhichoriginatedfromtheearlierMuslimpoliticalthinkers. Accordingto

AtharAli(1991:268),thesovereignpowerofthepadshahwasclaimedinreferenceto

thetheoryofsocialcontract.

Thisrationalconceptdemandedobedienceinfulfilment

of a mutual, contractual duty and helped to justify the sovereigns claims over the

individual subject. The strength of this theory lies in its secular character and its

foundationonallegedsocialneeds.

TheworldviewofMuslimsandHindusidentically

rests on the broad assumption that human society and cosmic reality are linked in

onechainofbeingandthat mansactivity insocietyshouldbeshapedbyhismoral

endowments for Muslims, the one created by God, for followers of Hindu

traditions,theonecreatedbypastdeeds(Hardy1986:4950).ThetaskoftheMughal

padshah was to preserve society, which consists of complementary elements or

groups and to compose an organic hierarchy (Hardy: 50). Thus, the padshah is

depicted as a physician to a social body whose health and equilibrium is to be

maintainedbyappropriateadjustmentofrankanddegrees.

Thehistorical, rational and religiospiritualclaims toauthority invested thepadshah

with an unprecedented legitimation of rule which corresponded to the Muslim and

Hindu ideals of the universal monarch. The image of the ideal ruler so created was

fostered and transmitted through a complex system of symbols, rituals and regular

ceremonial acts which communicated the imperial authority in various ways to the

different strata of society. Although the Mughalpadshah did not stand above the

16


7/28

shariathereexistednoconstitutionalcheckonhispower.TheMughalpadshah,ina

formalsense,possessedthehighestandmostabsoluteauthority intheempire.The

persona of the padshah embodied central authority of the state; royal commands

weresupremeandoppositiontothemwasseverelypunished. Ithasbeensuggested

that the Mughalpadshah occupied the pivotal position as the source of authority,

claiming the unquestioned allegiance and absolute loyalty of all his subjects

irrespective of religious, tribal or regional affiliations or personal or social status

(Rashid1979:140).

TheMughalpadshahwasthecommanderofthearmedforcesandfunctionedaschief

executive,highestjudicialandtheonlylegislativeauthority,withlawmakingauthority

in the fields where their lawmaking competence was not limited by religious or

customary law (Rashid: 141). Usually, thepadshah led military campaign in person,

supervised the administration and the financial affairs of the empireandpersonally

heldtheregularaudienceatcourtinwhichallinternalandexternalissuesweredealt

with. SincetheMughalssawthemselvesasguardiansandpromotersofthehappiness

and welfare of their subjects, the Mughal state created a tradition which made the

ruleralwaysaccessibletohissubjects.

The mobile imperial capital, containing all the facilities of court and civil

administration,meantthatthepadshahcouldalwaysconductandsuperviseimperial

policy directly. Neither military campaigns nor hunting expeditions were periods of

absence in the sense that the imperial centre was vacant, paralyzed or ineffective.

EvensupposingMughalpadshahspentmorethanfortypercentoftheirtimeincamp

or on tours (Blake 1991: 29899; Gommans 2002:10102),2 whilst at the same time

theyperformedtheirdailyroutine intheadministrationoftheempireeven ifthey

wereinthecampgroundsoratthemansionsofthenoblesvisitedbythepadshahs.In

September 1573, whilst as guest of Itimad Khan Gujrati at Ahmedabad, Akbar

resumedtheroutinematterofadministration(AbulFazl1998,vol.iii:89/63;Badauni

1973:17273/16970).DuringhisexpeditiontoPatna,whiledwellingatKhaniKhanan

MunimKhansmansioninAugust1574,Akbarconvenedawarcouncilofhisprincipal

military officers concerning the capture of Hajipur, which ultimately led to the

crumbling of Sultan Daud Khans power in Bengal (AbulFazl 1998, vol. iii: 135/96;

17


8/28

Ahmad 1936, vol.ii:444).In Shahjahans reign the King of Hindustan seldom fails,

writes Bernier even when in the field, to hold the assembly twice in a day on the

samepatternashehasdoneinthecapital.Thecustomisregardedasamatteroflaw

andduty,anditsobservanceisrarelyneglected(Bernier1983:360).

III.

AbulFazlexplainsthatthe successofthethreebranchesofthegovernment [those

concerningthearmy,thehousehold,andtheempire],andthefulfilmentofthewishes

of the subjects, whether great or small, depend upon the manner in which an

emperor spends his time (AbulFazl 1994, vol. i: 16265). Thus the vision of the

empirestartedwiththepadshah,andextendedoutwardstothehousehold,thenon

to the kingdom. The responsibility of thepadshah to make himself accessible to all

personsfortheredressalofgrievancesappearstobeanimportantpartoftheIranian

traditionofkingship.ItisworthmentioningthatmanyoftheMughalcourtritualsand

normsofconductespeciallytheprostrationbeforethepadshah,theseveralforms

ofsalutation,customofdistributionofgifts,titlesandofficesonspecialoccasionsor

festivalslikethenewyearsareofIranianattribution,traceabletotheSasaniancourt

(c.AD224651)(e.g.Tusi1978:1314;seealsoAlam2004;Marlow:1993).Onehardly

needs to reiterate here that the Mughals showed unprecedented interest in

patronizingPersiancultureduringtheirrule.

Tobeginwithordinarycourtroutines,AbulFazlandThomasRoedescribethe

routines of Akbar and Jahangir in similar form. Akbar began his day with personal

religious devotion, and then came to the jharoka, the small balcony from where

Mughalemperorsshowedthemselvestothegeneralpublic. Jahangiralsobeganhis

public day by visiting the jharoka. Here, Thomas Roes (1990:847) account is

instructive:

18


9/28

Thiscourse isunchangeable,unlesssicknessordrinkpreventyt;which

must be known, for as all his subjects are slaves, so he in a kynd of

reciprocal bondage, for he is tryed to observe these howres and

customes so precisely that if he were unseene one day and noe

sufficient reason rendred, the people would mutinie; two days noe

reasoncanexcuse,butthathemustconsenttoopenhisdooresandbee

seenebysometosatisfyeothers.

AlthoughThomasRoewasreferringtoJahangirscourt,hiscommentsarerelevantto

Akbars reign as well. The custom was called jharokaidarshan. Darshan, literally

seeing,isabasicfeatureoftheinteractionbetweenHinduspiritualteachersandtheir

disciples. According to AbulFazl (1994, vol.i:16465), the general population,

soldiers, merchants, peasants, trades people and other professions, gathered at

dawn inordertoseehisMajesty[Akbar].Fromthe jharokaMughalpadshahusually

wenttothediwaniam(hallofpublicaudience)ordurbarwheretheyconductedthe

main business of their offices, giving justice, in civil and criminal matters, including

officialmisconduct.AbulFazl(1994:165)describesthetime inthediwaniamasthe

second occasion during the day when people of all classes can satisfy their hearts

withthelightofemperorscountenance(AbulFazl1994,vol.i:165). Althoughitwas

calledhallofpublicaudienceeverypersonwasnotallowedtoattendthedurbar. In

Ain73,AbulFazl(1994,vol.i:165)writestheregulationregardingadmissiontocourt

ordurbar:

Admittancetocourtisadistinctionconferredonthenationatlarge;it

is a pledge that the three branches of the government [those

concerning the army, the household, and the empire] are properly

looked after, and enable subjects personally to apply for redress of

theirgrievances.Admittancetotherulerofthelandisforthesuccess

ofhisgovernmentwhatirrigationisforaflowerbed;itisthefield,on

whichthehopesofthenationripenintofruit.

19


10/28

All members of the imperial nobility or amirs were expected to visit the court

recurrentlyandundergoaritual,which,throughacomplexgradationingesturesand

presents gave expression to rank and honour. The beating of a drum announced

Akbars presence in the audience hall. The individual who had the privilege of

attending the durbar acknowledged the sovereign by performing the kurnish, the

placement of the palm of the right hand on the forehead and bending the head

downwards.Thekurnish signifiesthatthesaluterhasplacedhishead(which isthe

seat of the senses and the mind) into the hand of humility, giving it to the royal

assemblyasapresent,andhasmadehimselfinobediencereadyforanyservicethat

mayberequiredofhim.3Theofficerscomingtocourthadaudienceatthedurbar,

promotions and appointments were announced, and officers and others presented

and received gifts on these occasions. These kind of court rituals best symbolized

personal loyaltyof thesubordinate tothepadshahand theexchangeofpatronage

forservice.

TheMughalcourtrepresentedthecentreofimperialpower.Atthecourt,the

padshah performed his governmental duties; he received his nobles and foreign

embassies,directedthedepartmentsofthestate,dispensedjusticeandinspectedthe

army. All officers from top to bottom functioned under a rigorous discipline and

fearedmortallyofbeingcalledtoaccountforthederelictionofduty.Theutmostform

20


11/28

ofchastisementinflictedonthetopmostofficerswastoforbidtheirattendanceatthe

royal court: they were not permitted to attenddurbar and offer salutations to the

padshah. This caused them great mental and physical torture. The contemporary

chroniclesofMughalempirerecountcopiousincidentsofthisnature. Toexplorethe

contoursofabroadworldofthesovereignsdispleasure;letusfocusonthenarratives

inthechroniclesofAkbarsreignwhichrecordedseveralincidentsofcondemnationof

anofficers ingress inthecourt.4 InAugust1574,SadiqKhanwasoutlawedtomake

kurnish as he had not taken proper care to send the spoils of Bengal including two

noted elephants to the court (AbulFazl 1998, vol.iii:149/107; Qandahari

1993:225/195). Similarly,inMarch1586,RajaBhagwanDaswasforbiddentoperform

kurnish for negotiating unjustified terms of peace (22 February 1586) with Mirza

Yusuf, the ruler of Kashmir (Ahmad 1936, vol.ii:61213). Bhagwan Das felt greatly

embarrassedandstruckhimselfwithadaggerinordertosavehishonour.Thecourt

admissionsofQulijKhan(inNovember1596)andRaiRaiSingh (in JanuaryFebruary

1597)werebannedonthechargesofdistressingthepeople intheir jagirs (revenue

assignments).5

Rulesandregulationsofappearance inthe imperialcourtatthecapitalor in

themobileencampmentwereelaboratelylaiddown.TheMughalcourtcodereminds

us of Erving Goffmans formulation that the code that covered ceremonial rules is

incorporated in what is called etiquette. The refusal to show an expected act of

deference was, in the words of Erving Goffman, an indication that rebellion was

brewing(Goffman1956:473502).Strictadherencetoanelaboratecodeformulation

of conduct in the Mughal court was expected from each and every noble, and

anybody infringing it was severely punished. Shah Abul Maali (close companion of

Humayun)was imprisonedforthereasonthathetriedtoofferkurnishwhilesitting

on the horseback in April 1560 (AbulFazl 1998,

vol.ii:134/88;Badauni,vol.ii:33/39;Ahmad 1936, vol.ii:242). Lashkar Khan (in June

1571), Shujjat Khan (inAugust 1573) andShaikh JamalBakhtiyar (in October 1581)

were imprisoned forthereasonthattheyhadnot followedtheproperrulesofthe

turah(etiquetteorcode)inthecourtAbulFazl1998,vol.ii:529/364).6ArifQandahari

(1993:172/136137,225/195) 7alsoobservedthatAkbarwasconscientiousregarding

21


12/28

the turah to be maintained in the court. Several other factors (see below) could

apparently result in the rejection of officers entries in the public audience hall or

palace.

IV.

Thepadshah directly supervised and coordinated the offices and institutions of the

empire.Thedailypublicappearanceofthepadshah,hisfrequenttoursofhisdomain

andanefficient informationsystemprovidedmanyopportunities tothepadshahto

be informed about the state of affairs in the realm and grievances that may have

arisen.Thecharacterofthepadshahandthepersonaltieswhichhecreatedbetween

himselfandhiseliteplayedasignificantroleintheestablishmentoftheauthorityof

any particular padshah and, thus the strength of the role of the padshah himself.

EmperorAkbarcreatedaspecialimageofhimself,andsomeofhispersonalqualities

andvirtueslaterservedasamodelforhissuccessors.

Apartfromthepersonalqualitiesoftheemperor,severalotheraspectsofthe

relationshipbetweenemperorandhisofficersdeserveattention. Evenwhennotat

court,officerswereatthephysicaldisposaloftheirmaster.AbulFazlgivesacomplex

setof regulations for mounting the guard of the emperor and his household at the

palaceor intheencampment. Intheoryallofficersservedatthecourt foramonth,

mountingguarddutyonceaweek,soastohaveanopportunitytocometothecourt

and to partake in the liberality ofhis Majesty [Akbar] (AbulFazl 1994, vol.i:26768;

Blake: 28990). Akbar inspected each soldier personally. This ceremony doubtless

enhanced the personal relationship of the ruler with his officers. Father Antonio

Monserrate(1993:90)observed:

Inorder toprevent thegreatnoblesbecoming insolent through the

unchallengedenjoymentofpower,thekingsummons[them]tocourt

andgives themmany imperiouscommands,as though theywere

hisslavescommands,moreover,obedience towhich ill suits their

exaltedrankanddignity.

22


13/28

Imperial rules and procedures applied to all parts of the empire and to all

servants unless exempted for some special reason. The emperor determined the

physicallocationofhisofficersevenwhentheywerestationedelsewhere.Whenthe

mansabdars (holders of specified numerical ranks) were not at the court, the

reciprocal exchange of gifts still occurred regularly by way of imperial messengers.

Whenmansabdarsreceivedrobes(orkhilats)andpromotions,theywouldprostrate

to the imperial farman (decree) and the messenger who brought it, as they would

beforeAkbarhimself.8TheseritualsmadeMughalmansabdarssymbolicextensionsof

therulerandstrengthenedthetiesbetweentherulerandhisofficers.

Mostmansabdarsspenttheircareerseitherinacourtpostorinattendanceat

court, inapost intheprovinces,or intransitbetweencourtandpost.Mansabadars

rarelyreceivedpermissiontobeanywhereelsetheirwatans(homelands)or jagirs

mostfrequentlyanddeparturefromtheirpostswithoutpermission,eventogoto

court or jagirs, was an offence (Streusand 1989:14546). In September 1574, Khan

AlamIskandarKhanwhocametothecourtwithoutbeingsummonedfromtheBengal

expeditionwasdealtwithseverely(AbulFazl1998,vol.iii:14748/106).9 HakimAin

ulMulkwasnotallowedtoattendcourtandsalutetheemperorashecamewithout

orders fromhis jagir inDecember1590 (AbulFazl1998,vol. iii:886/584). InAugust

1597,ShahbazKhanwas identicallypunished forsimilarreason (AbulFazl1998,vol.

iii: 1092/732). Flight from the court constituted rebellion. AmirulUmara Mirza

Sharafuddin Husain Ahrari was declared an insurgent and his jagir near Ajmer and

NagaurwasresumedinOctober1562,whenhefledfromcourttohisjagirs.10

Dastam

Khan (in April 1601) and Dalpat Rai (in October 1601) were also reprimanded for

leavingthecourtwithoutapproval(AbulFazl1998,vol.iii:1181/789,1196/798).

The personal relations between the emperor and the elites were frequently and

carefully renewed in various court ceremonies and rituals of subordination. The

23


14/28

personalbondbetweeneachmemberof theeliteand theemperordetermined the

position,statusandthewealthoftheindividual.Ambitiousandcompetentmencould

climb the ladder of success by offering their service with unreserved loyalty. The

bestowal of the honours for loyalty brought the noble nearer to the person of the

emperorandtotheaurasurroundinghim. Ithasbeensuggested inanothercontext

thatpowerrelationshipswere indicatedbytheimageofnearandfar, inandout,or

movement ineitherdirection, lesssobythemodernwesternmetaphorofupdown

andfrontback(Lewis1988:1213).

Unambiguously,nearesttotheemperorwerethekhanazadas,thesonsofthehouse

or the houseborn ones (Streusand 1989:146148; Richards 1984:255289). Another

way to become closely attached to the emperors household was to bestow ones

daughtersonthe imperialharem.ThiswastheoptionchosenbymostoftheRajput

rajasofRajasthan,especiallythoseoftheKachhwahasofAmberandtheRathorsof

Marwars(Lal2005:17687).Inthesamespirit,physicalcontactwasanactofpolitical

attachmentandincorporation.Gesturessuchastheemperorapproachingtheamirs,

orlayinghishandontheamirsback,orevenembracinghim,wereallsignalsofthe

amirsspecialtiestotheemperorhousehold.Therewasotherwaysinwhichimperial

corporationcouldbeachievedforalmosteverysingleservingamiroftheempire.This

wasalmosttheroutinebestowalofkhilats,orrobesofhonour,bythepadshahupon

hisamirs, hence the importance attached to the public wardrobe. In principle, the

khilats had been worn by the padshah himself and, therefore, their acceptance

symbolized the incorporation of the amirs into the body of the emperor who

incarnated the empire. As drastically expressed by F.W. Buckler (1985:17687), the

amirsbecamethemembracorporisregis, inotherwords,participantsandsharers in

bodypolitic.Thereciprocityofthereceiptofthekhilatwastheofferingofnazr,gold

coins,andotherpresents,theamountandvaluebeingcarefullygradedandrelatedto

therankofthepersonmakingthepresentation.

V.

Publicpraiseandacknowledgementbythepadshahliftedthechosenindividualnoble

aboveothercourtnobles.Itconsiderablyincreasedhisprestige,andstrengthenedhis

24


15/28

identificationwiththeideaoftheempire.Thisquestionisallthemoreimportantina

period when status rather than wealth was the ruling concern. References to the

wealthofthenoblesorfightovermoneyinmedievalIndiantextsareveryskimpyand

resonate throughout with anecdotes of tension over symbols of status, especially

signsofproximitytothepadshahoravisittotheirhousesbythepadshah (Mukhia

2005:734) . The visit of the padshah to an amirs mansion was a matter of

extraordinaryfavor,andtestifiedtothenoblesprominenceandinfluence.Itwasthe

utmosthonourthatanoblecouldeverhopefor.Theformofthesevisitsarticulated

the relationship of the padshah and his mansabdars. These visits were centrally

concerned with incorporation. Nobles were, through visit rituals, subordinated and

symbolically incorporated into the body of the padshah. During these visits, the

exchangeofthegiftsandjointbanquetingofthenobilityandthepadshahreinforced

this incorporation. AbulFazl notes: [Their] mansions received celestial glory by the

radiance of his Majesty [Akbar] advent. The [nobles] tendered rare and exquisite

presentsandstoodreadytosacrifice[their]lifeforhisMajesty(AbulFazl1998,vol.ii:

188/123).

Despite the fact that Mughal texts abound in references to such royal visits, no

scholarly attention has been hitherto paid to their ceremonial significance. The

instances given below are taken from the four major chronicles of Akbars reign

namely,Akbarnama of AbulFazl,MuntakhabutTawarikh of Abdul Qadir Badauni ,

TabaqatiAkbari of Nizamuddin Ahmad and TarikhiAkbari of Muhammad Arif

Qandahari.Thesevisitsneednotbeconfusedwithimperialreligiousvisits.Ithasbeen

recordedbynumerousscholarsthatthetombandthedargahremainedanimportant

partofAkbarsimperialvisitsthroughouthisreignandthatestablishedaprecedentof

ziyarat(theactorplaceofperformingpilgrimage).11

In general,Padshah Akbar visited the nobles while travelling in the region of

theirpostings.Onlyrarelydidhetravelparticularlyfromthecapitaltothemansionof

nobles to fulfil their long cherished demand. The giving of rich presents to the

emperor was an acknowledgement of this honour. Competitive lavishness amongst

nobles was a step in their rise to the emperors favour. Akbari chronicles witness

innumerableinstanceswhenthepadshahacceptedinvitationstovisittheresidences

25


16/28

ofhisnobles.Ofcourse,someofwhomwerehisrelatives.Ontheseoccasions,nobles

threwsumptuous feasts (ziyafat)and thepadshahwouldspendacoupleofdaysat

these feasts. He and the accompanying courtiers would be entertained and offered

valuablegifts.

During Akbars onward journey to Lahore, when he arrived at Dipalpur, he

visitedthehouseofKhanAzamMirzaAzizKoka(Akbarsfosterbrother)inApril1571

and stayed there for a few days. Nizamuddin Ahmad writes in theTabaqatiAkbari

(364365/23132)concerningthelavishgiftspresentedbyMirzaAzizKokaonthelast

dayofthefeast:12

ArabandPersianhorseswithsaddlesofsilver,hugeelephantswithchainsof

goldandsilver,housingsofvelvetandbrocade,goldandsilver,pearlsand

jewels,andinvaluablerubiesandgarnetswerepresented.Chairsofgoldand

silver, vases and vessels of gold and silver, luxurious dresses of Europe,

TurkeyandChinaandotherpreciousthingswerepresented.Similarpresents

were also offered to the young princes and the Padshahs wives. Every

soldierofthearmyaccompanyingthepadshahalsoreceivedpresents.

Onanotheroccasion,ArifQandahariprovidesrichandpoeticdetailsofthepadshahs

visit and gift transactions at the newly built and profusely decorated house of

MuzaffarKhan(financeminister)atAgraon4January1572.Waxingeloquentabout

thisvisit,ArifQandahari(17578/13844)notes:13

26


17/28

Every possible apparatus for the grand celebration in all manners of

festivitiesandenjoymentwasaffixed.Theentirepassage,measuringtwo

thousand yards, from the royal palace up to his residence [Muzaffar

Khans] was decorated with various cloths such as zarbaft, Chinese silk,

European velvet, atlas and kamkhabiYazdi for the emperors steps....

Fromallsides,theedificewascanopiedwithbrocadeandvelvetAlarge

tent,madeoffeltclothoutsideandbrocadeandvelvetinside,wasfixed

there. The floor of brocade, velvet and silk was further decorated with

rugs from Khurasan and Iran The perfect and amicable arrangements

impressed the emperor and he cast his affectionate eye on the Khan,

conferred a white khilat [robe of special quality] with other honours

suchasswords,studdeddaggersandjewelledbelts.

The finest pieces of cloth such as zarbaft of Rum, velvet of Europe,

kamkhabiYazdi,atlasiKhataiofBukhara,studdeddupattaandturbans,

Deccanijewelledboxes,goldenthreadofGujaratandtheroyalMuslinof

Sunargaonwerepresented.Themahavatshaddecoratedthetrappings

oftheirmountain likeelephantswithvelvetandbrocadeofEurope.A

special (khasa) elephant, whose tusks covered with gold and decorated

with precious rubies and gems, ornamented dresses with cornelian and

preciouspearlswerealsopresented.For theblessedprinces,whoare

27


18/28

the pearls of crown and throne, beautiful, angel like maid servants,

diamond,rubyandfiruzawerepresented.Theprincesappreciatedallthe

presents.TheKhanpresentedgiftstohisnearanddearonesalongwith

hisservantsandattendantsofthepadshah.

Likewise, a feast was also heldby Abdur Rahim Mirza Khan (now KhaniKhanan) in

September1582at Fatehpur Sikri, to celebrate his appointmentasataliqof prince

Salim (future Jahangir), and invited the padshah to grace the occasion. The latter

could not refuse the request, says AbulFazl. Near contemporary chronicle further

avers(AbulFazl1998,vol.iii:583/393394;Hayy1979,vol.ii:105):

28


19/28

Thepathfromthefortuptohisresidencewasstrewnwithflowersof

goldandsilverandnearhisresidence rubieswerescattered.Atthe

entrance, cloths of satin and velvet were spread on the ground to

walkon.WithinthecompoundadaiswaserectedatthecostofRs.1,

25,000. Whenthepadshahtookhisseatonit,MirzaKhanpresented

precious jewels, expensive garments and sophisticated weapons of

war. The emperor was so pleased with the celebration that he

bestowed on Mirza Khan a drum, a charquali, a banner and all the

insigniapertainingtoaroyalprinceasamarkof favourwhichwere

never given to ordinary officers . It was said that even ordinary

noblescarriedoffseveralthings.

Choicestpresentsof jewelsand jewelledthingswerealsopresentedtothepadshah

whenhevisitedthehousesofSaidKhan(May1577)andQutbuddinMuhammadKhan

Atka (September 1579) on the occasions of their appointments as ataliq of prince

DaniyalandprinceSalimrespectively(AbulFazl1998,vol.iii:288/20405,401/27475;

Badauni, vol. ii: 278/270). On April 1592, Zain Khan Koka (foster brother) also

entertainedthepadshahathishouse.Hecoveredachabutra(terrace)withtus(goats

hair)shawlswhichwereveryrareinthosedaysandplaced threetanksinfront,one

filledwithrosewaterofYazd,anothercolouredwithsaffron,andthethirdwithargaja

withover1,000dancinggirls(tawaif)inthetanks. Streamsofmilkmixedwithsugar

flowedandrosewaterwassprinkled insteadofwater inthecourtyard(tosettlethe

dust). Filled baskets and vessels decorated with jewels were presented aspeshkash

(tributeorpresenttotherulingpower)alongwithnotedelephants (AbulFazl1998,

vol. iii: 973/613; Hayy, vol.ii:102728). At the residence of Sharif Khan Atka, the

padshahpassedhistime listeningtovocaland instrumentalmusic.SharifKhanAtka

29


20/28

presented him with nine elephants and twentyseven Iraqi and Arab horses and

variousfabricsastribute(Badauni,vol.ii:293/285;Ahmad,vol.ii:53839).

Akbaralsovisitedthemansionsofhismosttrustedandhighestrankednobles

on certain specified occasions.14 During the Narouz festival (the Persian New Years

Day),itbecamecustomaryforthegreatnoblestoinvitehimtotheirhousesandgive

choice presents (e.g. AbulFazl 1998, vol. iii: 55758/37879; Ahmad, vol.ii:55556).

FromtherecordedvisitsofAkbartothehousesofhisnoblesitseemsthat,ZainKhan

Koka(Akbarsfosterbrother)15

andBirbar(Akbarscourtierorpoet,distinguishedfor

fidelity and intelligence) 16

were honored five times. Bhagwan Das (fatherinlaw of

Jahangir) 17

and Abdur Rahim Mirza Khans (khanazada)18

houses were visited by

Akbar four and three times respectively. The repeated visit of thepadshah to their

housesshowstheirintimacywithhim.Itappears,fromthecontemporarychronicles,

thatnoothernoblehadsuch favoursmorethantwotimes.On theseoccasions the

nobles made offerings in accordance with their ranks. The padshah would accept

eithertheentireorapartoftheofferings.Attimeshewouldsimplyglanceandfeign

as having accepted the presents (Jahangir: 23). In the January 1578, Mihr Ali Sildoz

hadthehonourofentertainingthepadshahathishouse.Onlyafewofhisgiftswere

acceptedbyAkbar(AbulFazl1998,vol. iii:328/232).DuringAkbarsfifthvisittothe

houseofZainKhanKokainJanuary1595,thelatterpresented170elephants,onlya

fewof themwereaccepted,saysAbulFazl (1998,vol.iii:1044/698).Presentsoffered

byunfaithfulofficersweregenerallynotaccepted(e.g.AbulFazl1998,vol. iii:12/8).

Thedifferent levelsofgiftsexchangedwere indicatorsofeachofficialsstatus inthe

empire. A higher status in society became synonymous with frequent visits of the

padshahtothehouseofthenobleandgreaterpresentsgiventopadshah.

The examples mentioned above suffice to exemplify that the Mughal rituals of

welcoming and entertaining thepadshah were not just lavish but on an epic scale.

Splendour on such a scale was unheard of in Europe. Such rituals and functions

strengthened the bond between the sovereign and the aristocracy. It dazzled the

subjects who participated either by being spectators or by rendering numerous

services such as arranging and cooking on such a grand scale. Nevertheless, it is

importanttonotethatcontinualreferencetomaterialsofgoldinthesefeastsindicate

30


21/28

theprosperityofthemonarchy.Moreimportunatelythevisitsofthepadshahtothe

houseofthenoblesalsoreflecttheprosperityofthenoblesandtheirstandinginthe

hierarchy. The padshahs visits were confined to very senior nobles. Akbars visits

reaffirmeddevotionandsincerityinthebehaviourofthenobles.Itelevatedthemas

the distinguished members of the court. On various auspicious occasions like the

constructionofhouses, layingoutofgardensandmarriageceremoniesAkbarwas

invitedbynoblestotheirhouses.Thissymbolicallydemonstratesthattheworldwas

underthepadshahsprotection.SinceAkbarwasconstructedasthecentreofarealm,

itwaslikelythatthosehonouredbysuchvisitswereseenasblessed.

The Mughal theory of sovereignty had several significant features. The unifying

ideologyof the regimewasthatof loyaltyexpressed throughPersianculture forms.

Loyalty was constructed on the person of the padshah, the apex of a pyramid of

perpendicularbonds. AbulFazlfosteredanewimageofAkbarnotonlyasamilitary

and strategic leader, but also as a patron of the holy and the learned. This was

expressedintheoreticalwritingsandalsoinvariousimperialrituals.Thesamerituals

consolidated the imperial authority and symbolized the loyalty of themansabdars.

The ceremonials of the court served in large measures as a reconfirmation of the

status achieved bymansabdars in militarypoliticaladministrative terms. While the

ceremonialswerethediscernibleindicatorsofthisstatus,courtsawtheactingoutof

changing political relationship and rivalrieswithin the state. It servedasamirrorof

politicalrelationship.Intheritualsofthecourt,thepreciserelationshipsbetweenthe

rulingpowerandthemansabdarsweregivenvisibleformandsubstance,symbolizing

thegrantofpatronageandprotection,ontheonehand,andclientageandservice,on

theother.Theseritualsalsolinkedimperialauthoritytodivineauthority,thesourceof

allearthlypower.Thecentralinstitutionofceremonialinteractionwasthecourt,and

thepadshahwhowas,ifnotatalltimesthefocus,thechiefactorinthatceremonial.

To attend a ceremonial assemblage at court and the presentation of gifts to the

padshahwasanacknowledgementofallegiance. Likewise,departurewithoutorder

from the court and improper behaviour in the court was a sign of contumacy and

31


22/28

32

disobedience.Itwasthecourtrituals,morethananyotheroftheroyalappurtenances

whichdistinguishedthepadshahfrompredecessorsandthatsethimapartfromthe

othernobles.

nd NotesE

1 Forsymbolicconception,IrefertoInden,Ronald(1998:419).

2 Onthequestionofitinerantmonarchysee,Melville,C.(1993:195225).

3 Forformsofsalutation,see AbulFazl(1994,vol.i:167/166).

4 See, AbulFazl (1998, vol.ii:40102/26970; vol.iii:35657/247,550

51/375,554/377,60506/40809,81819/538,111718/748,1134/758).

5 AbulFazl(1998,vol.iii:1066/71516,106668/71719,1215/80910.6AbulFazl(1998,vol.ii:529/364;vol.iii:89/634,545/37172.

7 See also Badauni (1973, vol.ii:187/184, 396/383; AbulFazl 1998, vol.iii: 89/63

4,834/549,110407/74041,1140/763).

8 For,e.g.,seeAbulFazl(1998,vol.iii:185/13031)and Nathan,Mirza(1936,vol.i:74,

228,26163,29798).

9 See also for more examples, AbulFazl (1998, vol.iii:88586/584,1082/724

25,1110/743,118384/78990,1188/793);Badauni(1973,vol.ii:396/383).

10 None of the chroniclers explains his departure beyond saying that he haddevelopedgroundlesssuspicionsofAkbar(AbulFazl1998,vol.ii:30821/198207).

For detail account, see Trimingham, J. Spencer (1971:925) and Schimmel,

Annemarie(1975:365).

11ThereligiousimperialvisitsbyAkbarandsuccessiveMughalrulershasbeenstudied

anddiscussedindetailbyEbbaKoch.

12 Seealso,Abul Fazl (1998, vol.ii: 52829/ 36364); Qandahari (1993: 171/13233);Hayy,AbdulandShahNawazKhan(1979,vol.i:31920).

13 Neitherofthecontemporarynornearcontemporarysourcescontainsthesedetails

with the exception of Qandahari (1993:17578), who devotes seven pages to this

visit and the exchange of gifts. Abul Fazl (1998, vol.ii:531/36566) only mentions,


23/28

33

Hisquarterwasspirituallyandphysicallyilluminatedbytheadventandtherewere

greatrejoicing,devotesnoattentiontotheexchangeofgifts.

14

For

comprehensive

examples

of

nobles

entertaining

Akbar

in

their

houses,

see

AbulFazl(1998,vol.ii:978/645,177/116,18788/12223,20405/13233,21421

/13843,22829 /14748,345/224

25,411/277,428/291,437/298,496/339,513/352,51617/356 57,52829/36364;vol.

iii: 8890/634,91/65,135/956,288/20405,310/22021,322/228,362/250,514/350

51,547/378, 617/415,652/434, 661/ 440,705/468,721/478

79,749/494,775/508,790/517,793/51920, 827/54243,840/553,851/559

60,855/56566,85859/56768,865/57172,868 /574,92324/605, 985/641,

995/647,100506/65556,1027/869,103340/67376,1074/72021,108283/724

25,1085/726, 1116/747,1120/749,1141/76364,1181/78889,1189/793,1256/839);

Badauni (1973, vol.ii:449/4952,137/133, 173/16970, 293/285, 41920/40506);

Ahmad (1936, vol.ii: 22425,25051,254,25657, 324,355, 36466, 42022,508,538

39,638);Qandahari (1993:17172/13435). These visits will be dealt some other

occasion.

15AkbarsvisitstothehouseofZainKhanKoka:SeptemberOctober1583atEtawah(AbulFazl1998,vol.iii:617/415);December1585nearAttockBanaras, inPanjab(

AbulFazl 1998, vol.iii: 717/476); April 1592 in Panjab (AbulFazl 1998,

vol.iii:937/613);SeptemberOctober 1593 at Lahore (AbulFazl 1998, vol.iii:

991/644);January1595 inPanjab (AbulFazl1998,vol.iii:1044/698).Hishousewas

alsovisitedtwiceafterhisdeathatAgra:November1601andApril1603(AbulFazl

1998,vol.iii:1197/799,1229/819).

16AkbarsvisitstothehouseofBirbar:January1583atFatehpurSikri(AbulFazl1998,vol.iii: 587/397);October 1583 at FatehpurSikri (AbulFazl 1998,

vol.iii:615/414);November 1583 at Akbarpur, near Allahabad ( AbulFazl 1998,

vol.iii:617/415);September1584(AbulFazl1998,vol.iii:657/438);January1586at

Lahore(AbulFazl1998,vol.iii:720/478).

17AkbarsvisitstothehouseofBhagwanDas:May1569atAmber(AbulFazl1998,

vol.ii:

496/339);

October

1581

at

Lahore

(Abul

Fazl

1998,

vol.iii:

546/377);

February

1583 at FatehpurSikri ( AbulFazl 1998, vol.iii: 67778/451; Badauni 1973,


24/28

34

vol.ii:352/341; Ahmad 1936 ,vol.ii: 599);May 1586 at Lahore ( AbulFazl 1998,

vol.iii:748/494).

18

Akbars

visits

to

the

house

of

Mirza

Khan:

September

1582

at

Fatehpur

Sikri

(

Abul

Fazl 1998, vol.iii: 583/39394); November 1589 at Lahore ( AbulFazl 1998, vol.iii:

881/58182);October1599atMalwa(AbulFazl1998,vol.iii:1141/763).

BibliographyAbulFazl(1994)AiniAkbari.Ed.H.Blochmann.Calcutta186777.Tr.ofvol. IbyH.

Blochmann,revisedbyD.C.Phillott,vol.IIandIIIbyH.S.Jarrett,revisedbySir

JadunathSarkar.Delhi:Delhi:LowPricePublications.

AbulFazl (1998)Akbarnama.Ed.MaulviAghaAhmadAliandMaulviAbdurRahim.

Calcutta 187687.Tr.Henry Beveridge, 3 vols. Delhi: Delhi: Low Price

Publications.

Adamson,John(ed.)(1999)ThePrincelyCourtsofEurope:Ritual,PoliticsandCulture

undertheAncientRegime,15001750.London:WaylandPublishers.

Ahmad, Khwaja Nizamuddin (1936) TabaqatiAkbari. Ed. Brajendranath De and

MuhammadHidayatHusainand Tr.BrajendranathDe,3vols.Calcutta:Asiatic

SocietyofBengal.

Alam,Muzaffar(2004)TheLanguageofPolitical Islam in India,c.12001800 .Delhi:

PermanentBlack.

Ansari,M.A.(1974) SocialLifeoftheMughalEmperors,15261707.Delhi:Gitanjali

Publishers.

AtharAliM.(1997)MughalNobilityUnderAurangzeb.Delhi: OxfordUniversityPress.

Athar Ali, M. (1991[1978]) Towards a Reinterpretation of the Mughal Empire. In

HermannKulke(ed.)TheStateinIndia.Delhi:OxfordUniversityPress.

Aziz, Abdul (1937) Thrones, Chairs and Seats Used by Indian Mughals. Journal of

IndianHistory16,18688.

Badauni, Abdul Qadir (1973) MuntakhabutTawarikh. Ed. Maulvi Ahmad Ali,

Kabiruddin

Ahmad

and

W.N.

Lees.

Calcutta,

1868.

Tr.

vol.

I

by

E.S.A.

Ranking,

vol.IIbyW.H.Loweandvol.IIIbyT.W.Haig.Delhi:IdarahiAdabiyatiDelhi.


25/28

35

Bernier, Francois (1983) Travels in the Mughal Empire, 165668.Tr. Archibald

Constable.Delhi:S.Chand&Co.

Blake,

Stephen

P.

(1991[1979])

The

Patrimonial

Bureaucratic

Empire

of

the

Mughals.

In Hermann Kulke ( ed.)TheState in India,10001700. Delhi: Delhi: Oxford

UniversityPress.

Buckler,F.W. (1985) The Oriental Despot.In M.N. Pearson ( ed.) Legitimacy and

Symbols: The South AsianWritings of F.W.Buckler. Ann Arbor: University of

Michigan.

Eaton, Richard M. (ed.) (2003), Indias Islamic Traditions, 7111750, Delhi: Oxford

UniversityPress.

Eisenstadt,S.N.(1969)ThePoliticalSystemoftheEmpires.NewYork:FreePress.

Eisenstadt,S.N.(1968) Empires. InDavidL.Sills(ed.) InternationalEncyclopediaof

theSocialScience(IESS).NewYork:MacmillanandFreePress.

Giasuddin,AhmedSyed(1982).ATypologicalStudyoftheStateFunctionariesunder

theMughals. AsianProfile10,no.4.

Goffman,Erving (1956)TheNatureofDeferenceandDemeanor.American

Anthropologist

58,473502.

Gommans,Jos (2002)MughalWarfare: Indian FrontiersandHighRoads toEmpire,

15001700.LondonandNewYork:Rutledge.

Hardy,Peter (1986) TheAuthorityoftheMuslimKings inMedievalSouthAsia. In

Purusartha 9,4950.

Hasan,Farhat(2006)StateandLocality inMughalIndia:PowerRelationinWestern

India,c.15721730.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

.Hayy,AbdulandShahNawazKhan(1979)MaasirulUmara.Ed.MaulviAbdurRahim

and Ashraf Ali and Tr. Henry Beveridge, revised and completed by Beni

Prasad,3vols.Patna:JankiPrakashan.

Hintze,Andrea (1997).TheMughalEmpireand ItsDecline:An Interpretationof the

SourcesofSocialPower.Aldershot:Ashgate.

Hodgson, Marshall G.S. (1974) The Venture of Islam. Chicago: Chicago University

Press.


26/28

36

Inden,Ronald(1998)Ritual,AuthorityandCyclicTimeinHinduIndia.InJ.F.Richards

(ed.)KingshipandAuthorityinSouthAsia.Delhi:OxfordUniversityPress.

Jahangir,

Nuruddin

Muhammad

(1978)

Tuzuk

i

Jahangiri.

Tr.

Alexander

Roggers

and

Ed. HenryBeveridge.Delhi:MunshiramManoharlal.

Lal, Ruby (2005) Domesticity and Power in the Early Mughal India. Cambridge:

CambridgeUniversityPress

Lewis, Bernard. (1988) The Political Language of Islam. Chicago: University of

ChicagoPress.

Lindenfeld,DavidF.(1988)OnSystemandEmbodimentsasCategoriesforIntellectual

History.HistoryandTheory27,3050.

Marlow, Louise (1993)Hierarchyand Egalitarianism in Islamic Thought. Cambridge:

CambridgeUniversityPress

McNeill,WilliamH.(1982)ThePursuitofPower.Chicago:ChicagoUniversityPress.

Melville,C.(1993:195225) FromQarstoQandahar:The ItinerariesofShahAbbas I

(15871629). In J.Calmard (ed.)EtudesSafavides . Paris and Tehran: Institut

FranaisdeRechercheenIran.

Monserrate,FatherA.(1993)TheCommentaryofhisjourneytotheCourtofAkbar.Tr.

J.S.Hoylandandannotatedby S.N.Banerjee. Jalandhar:

Mukhia,Harbans (2005)TheMughalsofIndia.OxfordandDelhi:BlackwellPublishing.

Nathan,Mirza(1936)BahristaniGhaybi.Ed. andTr. M.I.Borah,2vols. Guwahati:

GovernmentofAssamPress.

Nuckolls,CharlesW(1990)TheDurbarIncident.ModernAsianStudies24,3,52959.

Price, Simon and David Cannadine (eds) (1987) Rituals of Royalty: Power and

CeremonialinTraditionalSocieties.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Qandahari, Muhammad Arif (1993) TarikhiAkbari. Ed. Sayyid Moinuddin Nadwi,

SayyidAzharAliandImtiazAliArshi.Rampur,1962.Tr.TasneemAhmad.Delhi:

PragatiPublications.

Rashid ,S.Abdur (1979) TheMughal ImperialState. InR. J. Moore (ed.)Tradition

and

Politics

in

South

Asia.

Delhi:

Delhi:

Vikas

Publishing

House.


27/28

37

Richards, J.F. (1984:25589) Norms of Comportment among Imperial Mughal

Officers.InBarbaraDalyMetcalf(ed.)MoralConductandAuthority:ThePlace

of

Adab

in

South

Asian

Islam.

Berkely:

University

of

California

Press.

Schimmel,Annemarie (1975)MysticalDimensionsof Islam.ChapelHill:Universityof

Carolina Press.

Stein,Burton(1980)Peasant,StateandSocietyinMedievalSouthIndia.Delhi:Oxford

UniversityPress.

Stein,Burton(1998)AlltheKingsMana:PerspectivesonKingshipinmedievalSouth

India.InJ.F.Richards(ed.) KingshipandAuthorityinSouthAsia.Delhi:Oxford

UniversityPress.

Streusand, Douglas E. (1989) The Formation of the Mughal Empire. Delhi: Oxford

UniversityPress.

Thomas Roe, Sir (1990) The Embassy of Sir Thomas Roe to India, 161519. Ed. Sir

WilliamFoster.Delhi:LowProcePublications.

Trimingham,J.Spencer (1971)TheSufiOrdersinIslam.NewYork:HarperandRow.

Tusi, AbuAli Hasan (1978) Siyast Nama. Ed. and Tr. H. Darke. The Books of

GovernmentorRulersofKings.London:

Verma, S.P.(1976)EnsignsofRoyaltyattheMughalCourt(inthesixteenthcentury).

Islamic Culture50,1.

Wittfogel,KarlA.(1981)OrientalDespotism.NewYork:VintageBooks.

AnAbstract:The Mughal Empire was oneof the great dynastic powers of the medieval Islamic

world and its nature has always been of captivating interest to historians of India

and Europe alike. As we all know Mughals padshahs (emperors) had claimed a

variedsetofsymbols,metaphorsandceremonialactstorepresenttheirauthority.

The purpose of this paper is to offer a model for categorization of the Mughal

authorityoutoftheordinaryaccentsonthesymbolismandceremonialelements


28/28

or rather itscapsuledescription to facilitatecomprehensionof itssignificance in

Indianhistory,ratherthantoclassifyitwithexternalandgeneralperspectives.

Documents

Authority of the Padshahs in 16th century mughal India